(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *regret has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 01 00:44 | |
| *regret has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 01 00:44 | |
| *happynewyear (~newyear@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 01:02 | |
| *happynewyear (~newyear@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 01:02 | |
| *SaphirJD has quit (connection closed) | Jan 01 04:18 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jan 01 06:43 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 06:43 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 01 09:47 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 12:41 | |
| *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@8dh7gmy6ps5fy.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 13:10 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jan 01 13:34 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 13:36 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jan 01 13:45 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 13:47 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jan 01 14:10 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 14:10 | |
| schestowitz | "On 4 May 2023 the Judges of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO met with “stakeholders” of all organizations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Two representatives of SUEPO, as well as some lawyers who frequently represent SUEPO before the Tribunal, took part in this meeting in Geneva. | Jan 01 14:19 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | During the meeting the President of the Tribunal also announced important changes to the Rules of the Tribunal, which were subsequently published on 11 May 2023 and entered into force at the very day. The most important changes seem to be the limitation of the number of pages for all submissions and the changed time limit for filing an application to intervene. The latter amendment requires you to take immediate action in case you want | Jan 01 14:19 |
| schestowitz | to intervene in a complaint. | Jan 01 14:19 |
| schestowitz | The report on the meeting with the Judges of ILOAT and further information on the changes to the Rules of ILOAT can be found here. | Jan 01 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 01 14:19 |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 14:49 | |
| schestowitz | "On 24 July 2023, we distributed to all members model appeals against the salaries and pensions adjustments in 2023. Members, please check your email. | Jan 01 14:59 |
| schestowitz | Many of you submitted a review request based on the model that SUEPO provided on 10/11 March 2023. On 10 May 2023, the administration decided negatively on these requests | Jan 01 14:59 |
| schestowitz | We would like to remind you that the deadline for filing such appeals is approaching: 10 August 2023. Please contact your Local Bureau if needed. ' | Jan 01 14:59 |
| schestowitz | "On 7 July 2023, the Tribunal delivered three judgments dismissing complaints against the EPO career system (CA/D 10/14): | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | Jan 01 15:02 | |
| schestowitz | - Judgment 4710 rules on a complaint challenging the general decision CA/D 10/14 insofar it abolishes the seniority based step advancement; | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | Jan 01 15:02 | |
| schestowitz | - Judgment 4711 rules on a complaint challenging the implementing decisions to abolish the seniority based step advancement; | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | Jan 01 15:02 | |
| schestowitz | - Judgment 4712 rules on a complaint challenging the transposition of the complainant into the New Career System. | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | Jan 01 15:02 | |
| schestowitz | As of 19 July 2023, the Tribunal has sent emails to other complainants asking them to let the Tribunal know by Friday, 15 September 2023 whether they wish to withdraw their complaint in light of the Tribunal's recent rulings. | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | SUEPO has analysed the judgments together with the legal counsels and notes that the lead complainant in the above cases still has the possibility to file an application for review of the judgments until 5 October 2023." | Jan 01 15:02 |
| schestowitz | previously: | Jan 01 15:03 |
| schestowitz | "UEPO is in the process of analysing the judgments together with the legal counsels (e.g. | Jan 01 15:03 |
| schestowitz | the pleas of former A4(2) colleagues differ from the ones of the above complaints). | Jan 01 15:03 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 01 15:03 |
| schestowitz | https://www.ilo.org/tribunal/review/lang--en/index.htm | Jan 01 15:04 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ilo.org | Application for review (TRIBUNAL) | Jan 01 15:04 | |
| schestowitz | "Quantity and timeliness are the ultimate quality | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 10, 2023 AT 3:49 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | This article may be of interest: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | https://www.patentlitigation.ch/productivity-vs-quality-at-the-epo-a-rare-glimpse-behind-the-curtain-thats-worrying/ | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Sustainability (financially only) is the key. No changes are to be expected after the latest ILOAT judgments. The new career system will remain in place whatever the consequences are. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Sharing concerns | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 10, 2023 AT 9:13 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Simplification of the fee structure? The proposal seems overly complicated, and the result even more… It does not seem to be a “simplification” at all… | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | what a bunch of......* | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 1:11 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Thanks to Mr Bausch for an entertaining but revealing paper on the doings of the EPO. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The EPO has indeed become a master in propaganda and most of its publications have to be taken, not with a pinch of salt, but a whole vat of it. Just look at the very verbose Quality Charter published a year ago. If all what is described therein would correspond to reality, there would be no need for the users of the system to complain about the quality of the work delivered by the EPO, cf. IPQC. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The same applies to the Quality report 2022. Whilst on page 38 it is clear that searches without any finding have gone down about 10% from 2021 (92,3%) to 2022 (82,6%), there is no explanation found about this lowering of the quality of searches. In the diagram on page 38, there is a heading “quality improvement” which increased from 3,3% in 2021 to 9,7% in 2022. The corresponding explanation, granularity of the extended search audi | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | t, is anything but convincing. This does not hinder the EPO to claim “that the overall very high level of quality of search reports was maintained” | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The same applies to the quality of examination, see page 46 of the QR 2022. It has changed from 75,4% in 2021to 76,6% in 2022, in spite of all the measures having allegedly been taken to improve quality of examination. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | It does thus not come as a surprise the non-paper at stake here, is of the same kind: hiding reality behind smoke screens. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Before going into more details, it should be reminded that it was Mrs Brimelow which decided that the financial situation should be dealt with according to the IFRS financial rules. This meant that the procedural fees like search, examination, opposition and the like, whilst on the EPO accounts, should not be counted as income, unless the work was carried out. This was not a bad move, as it allowed to clarify the financial situation of | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | the EPO, which by the way has never been bad. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | ‘When deciding to reduce salaries and benefits for staff, the actual tenant of the 10th floor decided that the annual fees revenues should not be taken into account, and even went as far as to consider that for the years 2018 to 2038, the income would not increase and remain constant, whereas the salaries and pensions will grow at a rate of 2,24% above inflation. I speak here about the famous 2019 Mercer and Wyman study. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | In 2019, the Central Staff Committee commented as follows: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – between 2018 and 2038 the EPO will not raise its procedural and renewal fees except once, by 4%, in 2020. For the remaining period the fees are assumed to remain constant (page 115). A correction for inflation is not foreseen. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – between 2018 and 2038 the national renewal fees on patents granted by the Office will remain constant (page 116). A correction for inflation is not foreseen. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | in sharp contrast during the same period EPO salaries are assumed to increase at a rate of 2.24% above inflation (page 119). | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – without providing any underlying data, the study assumes that the costs of pensions and other post-employment benefits (incl. tax compensation) will almost triple over the next 20 years (pages 66-67, page 123). | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – The study foresees no further transfer of operational surpluses to the RFPSS, although with a 4.8% return above inflation over the last 20 years (6.3% over the last 5 years) the money would be well placed (RFPSS/SB 41/19, page 2, Fig. 3). | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | the study assumes that operational surpluses will not be transferred to the EPOTIF either (page 63). The EPOTIF was recently created with the very purpose of shielding EPO capital from inflation and is expected to deliver a return of 4% above inflation (CA/F 10/18 para.10). | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – instead expected operational surpluses are assumed to be parked as “other financial assets” with an average annual return of between – 0.03% and 0.78%, i.e. well below the level of inflation2. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – as indicated above, over the last 20 years the RFPSS had a real return of 4.8%. The actuaries who evaluate the RFPSS assume a long-term return of 3.5%. The Financial Study assumes a return above inflation of only 2.1% (FAQs). This transforms today’s 104% coverage (CA/61/17 point 79) into a 2 billion euro gap in 2038. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The 2019 EPO Financial Study by Mercer and Oliver Wyman assumes that: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | ‘”Although the EPO’s currently makes a budget surplus of about €400m /year (20% of the budget), Mercer and Wyman predict an overall €3.8bn deficit by 2038 and endorse the President’s suggestion to add a €1.9-2bn “buffer” when closing the alleged gap. The principal means planned to fill the alleged gap will be a reform of the annual adjustment method for the staff’s salaries and pensions.” | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | ‘SUPO asked Ernst and Young to check the Mercer and Wyman study, with the following result: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Ernst & Young estimated what they called the “illustrative impact” of those highly conservative assumptions. Their main findings are the following: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – more realistic assumptions (in line with those of the RFPPS actuaries) for the contribution levels to the RFPSS and the EPOTIF reduce the alleged gap by €2.3bn | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – more realistic assumptions of the return on the RFPPS and EPOTIF assets in line with other EPO documents reduce the gap by €4.0bn, | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – taking into account expected future income from patents existing in 2038 (omitted in the 2019 study) reduces the alleged gap by €4.7bn, | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – assuming that EPO internal fees will rise with inflation (rather than stay constant until 2038) reduces the gap by €1.6bn. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – Ernst & Young further pointed out a methodological error in the 2019 study that inflates the gap by €1.3bn. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | If now allegedly there are problems, it seems that the upper management has, in spite of its very “conservative” approach, manifestly failed and completely misjudged the situation. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | I would therefore expect that not only the IRFs will be increased, but the next attack on salaries and pensions is programmed. The last salary increase resulting from the “new adjustment method”, which was clearly not favourable for staff, was so high that some delegations in the AC chocked on it. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SMEs are the fig leaf behind which the proponents of the UPC have been hiding to push it through. As it worked so well for the UPC, it does not come as a surprise that the upper management of the EPO has jumped on this train. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The package is so well presented that a reader with normal attention will not realise what is going on. It is thanks to people like Mr Bausch that we are made aware of the truth behind all this waffling prose. I would therefore be inclined to share Mr Bausch’s suspicion: there are problems, most probably linked with EPOTIF due to the gambling with the money of this fund, as the RFPSS is much more controlled. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | * Fill in the gap! | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 1:27 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Is the EPO’s financial position really so precarious that they have no choice but to increase (by huge percentages) fees paid by essentially all applicants? | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Even though the last financial study was based upon an assumption of no fee increases whatsoever that study did not predict financial doom for the EPO in all scenarios. Since that study was completed, the EPO’s financial performance (relative to predictions) will no doubt have been boosted by: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | (a) at least two rounds of increases, including an exceptional, out-of-turn increase to account for an unexpectedly high rate of inflation; and | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | (b) steps taken by the EPO to reduce (increases in) their wage bill, for example by reducing examiner / formality officer numbers, and greatly limiting salary increases / rewards for the majority of employees. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Indeed, if I am not mistaken, has the EPO not made very substantial surpluses each year since the last financial study … so much so that they have been able to transfer huge sums to (relatively) “risky” investment portfolios? | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Of course, there is no independent, external audit of the EPO’s finances, and so it is difficult to know precisely what is going on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, the EPO’s pronouncements on the reasons for the proposed increases are impossible to square with a few facts that can be established. To me, this disconnect between reality and the EPO’s pronouncements makes the latter not so much a masterclass in propaganda as tour de | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | force in gaslighting. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Old good days | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 2:26 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Mr Bausch you have no idea how much we older examiners admire you for digging out the sh!t under the shiny surface carefully built by our incompetent leaders. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | It reminds us of the good old times when we actually had the time to do our work and dig out the same material from applications, which now result almost immediately in very shiny, smelly, worthless – and as you just discovered – more expensive and less profitable granted patents. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Sorry but now it is not the right time to disturb us: this week there will be an apotheosis of BS events at the office. Have a look in the Internet, maybe you’ll find them as well. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Simona Fonzi | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 7:29 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | EPO and UPC are self-financed institutions, which feed themselves on the number of granted patents and number of litigated patents respectively. What could go wrong? Are they still public institutions we can trust? | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Furthermore, they are govern by law makers which have a strong conflict of interests, as they receive renewal fees from those granted patents. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | law sniffer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 10:56 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | I find it normal that if you get a grant in shorter time and you pay less fees because of this an increase of fees per year be taken in consideration, it would be only fair and of common sense. At the same quality of course! I personally doubt that the internal auditing department of the EPO is consistent, reliable and has a better quality understanding than the rest of the examiners, in industry it is usually only a different career op | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | portunity which is very often quite detached from the real work. Quality can be determined only by studying real cases with respect to past cases and this can be done only together among applicants and EPO experts by analyzing specific cases, all the rest is only fresh air, still waiting for the jointly agreed publication of a striking case that exemplarily describes a quality deterioration … | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 AT 12:47 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Something further has struck me about the EPO’s reasons for proposing (significant) increases in the renewal fees for years 3 to 5. That is, the reasoning is entirely focused upon perceived “losses” to the EPO regarding income generated from (internal) RENEWAL fees. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | This reasoning is particularly odd because it is entirely divorced from the EPO’s obligation under Art 42 EPC to ensure that the budget of the Organisation is BALANCED. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The EPO has made no attempt to demonstrate that the “losses” (of income from internal renewal fees) in any way threaten to throw the budget of the Organisation out of balance. Indeed, it is perfectly possible, perhaps even highly likely, that the proposed increases in renewal fees are NOT required to keep the Organisation’s budget in balance. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Absent any demonstration of a clear and present danger to the “balance” of the EPO’s budget, I really do not see how any AC members could possibly justify voting for the EPO’s proposal. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | What a bunch of …….! | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AT 1:30 AM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | @ Concerned observer, | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | As long as the “cooperation budget“ will be used to „help” the votes in the AC, any proposal stemming from the 10th floor will be rubber stamped by the AC. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | It is only if weighted voting is introduced for all decisions, that we can expect some improvement of the situation. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | One country, one vote has been fatal to the EPO as it has become fatal to the EU. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Just an example: when it was decided to ban the boards of appeal to Haar, the large countries voted against, but a simple majority was achieved with the help of the cooperation budget. Now without batting an eyelid, the boards will be repatriated to one of the empty EPO buildings. The million of € dilapidated by those successive moves will have been spent in vain | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Do not expect to get anything positive from the AC. As as been said by others, the tail is wagging the dog. The AC has given up his control function of the EPO. Sad but true. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | law sniffer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 AT 8:57 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | weird that EPO employees pled for years for fee increases to maintain their high salaries or low efficiency and now they oppose this only because it may be a sign of weaker finances and thus of a need of possible internal staff reforms, or only for the sake of saying no … | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Address the right target, and it is not y | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AT 1:11 AM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | @law sniffer, | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | You have amply demonstrated here and in previous blogs that you have strong reservations about examiners at the EPO. One wonders why. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | You seem either to belong to the upper management of the EPO or to be a staunch supporter of the latter. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | In order to see how the quality of the work delivered is not what it used to be, I invite you to look at decisions of the boards of appeal, especially after an opposition. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | As oppositions are not evenly distributed over the whole technical domains, their result should not be over interpreted, but their number is high enough to be revealing of the present loss of quality over the years. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | To be blamed are prima facie not the examiners, but the upper management of the EPO. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Internal staff reforms are been carried out for many years, up to the point that the EPO is not any longer the employer it used to be as salaries and working conditions have been lowered to the point of the EPO has difficulties in recruiting good people. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | This is compounded by the fact that training has been reduced, experienced examiners are leaving as soon as they can, but production targets are constantly increasing on the pretext that IT tools are constantly improved, which is, alas, not the case. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | The remaining examiners are not stupid, they know how to play with the system, and they cannot be blamed for this. EPO’s management has forgotten that examiners have in principle the same level of education than the management. The concentration of grey cells per square meter is probably one of the highest in the world. That the result is so bad is thus mainly caused by the quest of the upper management of the EPO for ever increasing | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | financial gains for themselves. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AT 11:00 AM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Sniffer, I have been working on EP patents for over two decades but have never heard of EPO employees pleading for increases in fees to pay for increases in their salaries. Perhaps you have some (non-public) insight on this matter from EPO insiders? | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | In any event, I should point out that the past (alleged) behaviour of EPO employees is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether the current, proposed fee increases are justified. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | For the sake of completeness, I should also point out that the blog post neither mentions EPO employees nor presents matters from their point of view. I therefore find it curious that you were nevertheless motivated to make unflattering allegations about those employees. What is it that you have against them? | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AT 11:05 AM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | I forgot to add: “maintain low efficiency” is a very subjective way in which to view the past performance of EPO employees. Another way that said performance could be viewed is “maintain high quality”. It all depends upon how one defines, and then measures, “efficiency” and “quality”. I guess that we will all have our own views on such matters. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AT 1:56 PM | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | I have had another thought that connects with my previous comments. That is, whilst a shorter average duration from filing to grant leads to the EPO recouping fewer (internal) renewal fees, that is FAR from the whole story with respect to the average fee income that the EPO recoups from each application. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Quicker grant could mean (and, looking at recent statistics, DOES mean) that the average amount of examiner time spent on each file has gone down. For the same examination fee. This represents an “efficiency” saving for the EPO. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | Then there is the question of whether quicker, more “efficient” examination leads to a higher percentage of cases proceeding to grant. Looking at recent statistics, the answer to this question is a very clear “YES”. This means that the EPO will: | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – reduce the number of cases in which a very significant amount of examiner time is spent on (conducting oral proceedings and) drawing up a decision to refuse an application; and | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | – increase the number of cases where applicants pay the fees for grant. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | From the above, it will be clear that the OVERALL financial effects of an office operating at “cruising speed” may not be quite what the EPO makes out … and may, in fact, lead to the office generating, on average, MORE income per application. | Jan 01 15:05 |
| schestowitz | This is why it is meaningless to only look at income from renewal fees, as it could easily paint a misleading picture … which was perhaps the intention?" | Jan 01 15:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.patentlitigation.ch | Productivity vs Quality at the EPO: A rare glimpse behind the curtain that's worrying | FPC Review | Jan 01 15:05 | |
| schestowitz | https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/09/09/epo-propaganda-master-class-or-how-to-justify-higher-fees-for-lower-quality-work/ | Jan 01 15:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | EPO Propaganda Master Class – or: How to Justify Higher Fees for Lower Quality Work - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jan 01 15:11 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@kgjtzp9sreehi.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 18:48 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) | Jan 01 19:18 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.) | Jan 01 20:22 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 01 20:24 | |
| *asusbox2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jan 01 20:24 | |
| *happynewyear has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 01 20:32 | |
| *happynewyear has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 01 20:32 | |
| *happynewyear (~newyear@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 20:40 | |
| *happynewyear (~newyear@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes | Jan 01 20:40 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.